--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Mike Dixon <mdixon.6...@...> wrote: > > Shemp, you to, are right. But world opinion would not > allow us to bomb the living f...@#^% out of an enemy, even > if they nuked us first.
Oh, really? > But the cost of doing nothing and allowing a country to > be a home base for terrorism to launch attacks against our > homeland would be even costlier, remember the the recession > it caused following 9/11. The economic effects of the 9/11 attacks were almost entirely due to our irrational *fear*. The actual damage caused by terrorist attacks pales in comparison to the damage the attackees inflict on themselves in the aftermath. Terrorist attacks--even a nuke attack--don't pose an existential threat to this country in and of themselves. It's how we respond to them that poses the existential threat--not just at home with regard to infringement on our civil liberties and destruction of our constitutional principles, but abroad in unbelievably costly wars that sap our economic well-being, not to mention the tragedy of mass slaughter, not to mention the loss of goodwill internationally. And the heck of it is, all the wars and super-duper security are *unlikely to prevent* further attacks. We've just been lucky so far; it won't last forever.
